presbytery claiming the jus devolutum. Where a parish had originally more than one patron, the right of presentation will be alternate &

When a right of presentation is vested in a collective body, the civil authority will determine in disputes as to the election, in every respect, as if it were an ordinary patronage ". In a case, where the parish possessed the right of presentation from Act 1690, it was decided, that the presbytery's power was merely of a spiritual nature, to ascertain the qualifications of a presentee; but what respected the temporal benefice, as the right of patronage, belonged to the civil court i.

Upon the establishment of a new church within a country parish, where nothing is settled respecting the patronage, the right of presenting devolves upon the patron of the parish: The same takes place, upon the erection of a parish by the court of teinds. In a case of this description, two opposite decisions were given: That the patron of the old parish had right to the presentation of the new erection,—that the right of presentation was vested in the contributors. The last judgment was reversed by the house of lords, and the patronage vested in the former patron j.

pa

When second charges are erected, it seems to be laid down, that to vest the patronage of them in the contributors it is necessary, that either they should expressly reserve the tronage in the deed of erection, or they should be in the use of exercising the right of presentation. It is stated, by an eminent authority, that an erection or settlement of a second minister accresces to the patronage of the first charge; and he reports a case, wherein it was found, that the patron of the parish was entitled to present to the office of second minister,

Fac. Coll. 7th Feb. 1788. Grant.

g Bankt. B. II. tit. 8. § 70. Ersk. B. II, tit. 5, § 11.

Snodgrass and others v. Logan and others, 16th June 1772.

i Fac. Coll. 9th Decr. 1791, Dunlop and others v. Muir and others.

j Fac. Coll. 20th Feb. 1762, Cunningham and others v. Wardrop and others.

which was erected by contribution of heritors *. "Patrons," says Mr Erskine, " are entitled to a seat and burial-place in "the church". Burying in the church is now quite exploded; but the right of a patron to the choice of a seat in the church, is still in force'.

The age of a presentee is general about 25; this is settled by the church courtsTM.

Mode of enforcing Presentations.-Presentations were first directed to the archbishop or bishop of the diocese, and if they refused to receive a qualified presentee, the patron was entitled to retain in his hands the whole fruits of the benefice. Upon the establishment of presbyterianism, presentations to benefices were directed to be made to presbyteries." When the right of presentation was restored to patrons, presbyteries were required to admit qualified persons. The only remedy which patrons have against an unreasonable refusal of church courts to admit a qualified presentee, is to retain the stipend P. The patron, however, does not, in such a case, acquire the property of the stipend, but must hold it in trust, and apply it, as the law directs .4

Where the patronage is disputed, the church courts stop proceedings till the question be determined in the civil courts. If the church courts should state objections to the patron's right, and proceed to the discussion of these, it will be competent for the patron to bring a declarator before the court of session, and get his title established by a judgment of that court. If a presbytery should exercise their own judgment in a question of patronage, and settle the presentee of a patron, whose right shall afterwards be set aside in a civil court,

k Lord Kilkerran, Cochran v. the Officers of State, 21st Jan, 1749.

1 Fac. Coll. 18th Feb. 1765, Lord Torphichen v. Gillon.

Vide Acts of Assembly, Probationers, 2.

Act 1690, c. 23.

• Act 10 Anne 11.

P Moncrieff v. Maxton, 15th Feb. 1735.

q Vide Vacant Stipends.

of Dunse.

Falconer, 25th Feb. 1749, Hay v. Presbytery

not only will the settlement be annulled, but the patron will have right to the disposal of the whole stipend, as in the case of a vacancy. This doctrine was established by three important cases', one of which was decided in the house of lords *.

Where presbyteries choose to proceed with a disputed presentation, the court of session cannot interfere, as the civil court has no direct controul over church courts in such cases. In one case, a bill of advocation was presented against the proceedings of a presbytery, towards the settlement of a young man elected by themselves, upon the call of the people, the court repelled the bill as incompetent '.

POOR.

The poor are directed by law, to be maintained chiefly by assessments laid upon a parish, For this purpose, meetings are ordered to be held half yearly, on the first Tuesdays of the months of February and August, to make a list of all the poor within the parish, and to liquidate a sum necessary for their maintenance during the ensuing half year. The sum thus appointed, must be sufficient to support them without having recourse to begging, which is forbidden under severe penalties. The heritors of a parish are ordained to pay one half of the sum for the support of the poor, and tenants and and possessors, according to their substance, the other ". Heritors whose lands are annexed to another parish quoad sacra tantum, are not subjected to the maintenance of the poor of the parish to which they are united. Parochial assessments are ordered to be imposed, according either to the valued or real rent, or otherwise, as the majority of the heritor

Cochran v. Heritors of Culross, 22d June, 1751, Heritors and Minister of Lanark v. Crown, 9th May, 1758. Fac. Coll. Feb. 1762. Forbes v. Macwilliam.

$ The case of Lanark, t Nov. 19, 1748, Cochran, 1693, c. 43. 1695. c. 21, and others,

u Act 1672, c. 18. Procl. Aug. 1692. Acts

v Fac. Coll. 17th Nov. 1808, Thomson v Pollock

meeting shall agree". agree". Heritors therefore, have a discretionary power, both as to the mode of assessment *, and as to the particular description of subjects liable in the payment of poor's rates. Magistrates of burghs impose assessments on the inhabitants according to their property in the burgh, which is rated from the various situations of burghs". These assessments are assisted by the collections at the parish church, from mortifications of money, or other property; and from the profits arising from the hiring out of 2 hearse or mortcloth, of which a kirk-session may acquire the sole right, by immemorial exclusive usage c.

The administration of all the funds belonging to the poor of a parish, whether arising from assesments, collections, or mortifications, is the joint right of the heritors and kirk-sesson. The kirk-session indeed, has the regulation of the funds in ordinary and incidental cases; but in acts of extraordinary administration, as that of lending, uplifting, or reemploying money, the minister ought to intimate from the pulpit, ten days before the meeting that the heritors may be present and assist, if they think fitd. Any one heritor may call the session to account for their management of the poor's funds. The judge ordinary (sheriff or justices of the peace) is ordained to see the law put in due execution, and to decide what parishes is bound to aliment a poor person; but the heritors and kirk-session, have the exclusive power prima instantia, of modifying the aliment f.

Act 1663, c. 16.

x Fac. Coll. Jan. 19, 1773, Parish of Westkirk,

Fac. Coll. May 28. 1794, Parish of Inveresk.

*Acts 1579, c. 74. 1597, c. 279.

a Procl. Aug. 1693, ratified by Acts 695, c. 43 & 1698. c. 21.

b Procl. Aug. 1692, ratified ut supra.

e Turnbull and Mackaws, 10th Aug. 1756, Kirk-session of Dumfries v. the Squaremen, 18th Feb. 1798.

d Parish of Humbie, 1751.

e Nov. 23, 1752, Hamilton v. minister of Cambuslany.

Paton v. Adamson, 20th Nov. 1772. Parish of Coldingham v. Parish of Dunsc.

The persons who have a legal title to maintenance are the old, the infirm, the diseased, and such as from other causes, are incapacitated from earning a livelihood. These require permanent relief, either in whole or in part, and are denominated the ordinary poor, forming that list or roll, which heritors are directed to make up every half years. There are others, however, that in ordinary seasons are able to support themselves and household by their labour; but during a great scarcity of provisions, are obliged to have recourse to public support. These, who are called the extraordinary poor, are not entered upon the roll, but have an extraordinary temporary assessment levied for their relief".

The burden of alimenting a poor person lies upon the parish where he lived during the last three years immediately preceding the application for public charity. Residence as a householder is not necessary to confer a settlement in a parish, i. e. entitle to public support from it; it is sufficient that he has only resided as a lodger; or even remained for three years in a parish during an apprenticeship. Tradesmen may acquire a settlement by having their residence in one place for a course of years, although they have gone to a distant part of the country during summer to procure employment. Three years residence of a soldier upon duty in a parish cannot confer a settlement in it. And where a person has not, by three years industrious residence in a parish, become entitled to public support from it, the place of his nativity is liable for his maintenance. Vagrants also who have never any fixed residence, fall to the lot of the parishes where they were born; and where that is unknown, the parish in which they have had any residence, haunt, or most resort, for the space of three years immediately preceding their being

8 Act 1579, c. 74. Procl. Aug. 1692, ratified ut supra. Pollach v. Darling, 17th Jan. 1804.

i Runciman v. Parish of Mordington, Fac. Coll. 24th Jan. 1784.

i Heritors of Cockburnspath, 9th June, 1809.

* Parish of Dalwellington v. the Town of Irvine, 3d Dec. 1800.